linux-kernel - Re: slow open() calls and o

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:04:52 -0400
From:	"Aaron Wiebe" <epiphani@...il.com>
To:	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: slow open() calls and o_nonblock

On 6/4/07, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Now, I'm a userspace guy so I can be pretty dense, but shouldn't a
> > call with a nonblocking flag return EAGAIN if its going to take
> > anywhere near 415ms?
>
> Violation of causality. We don't know it will block for 415ms until 415ms
> have elapsed.

Understood - but what I'm getting at is more the fact that there
really doesn't appear to be any real implementation of nonblocking
open().  On the socket side of the fence, I would consider a regular
file open() to be equivalent to a connect() call - the difference
obviously being that we already have a handle for the socket.

The end result, however, is roughly the same.  We have a file
descriptor with the endpoint established.  In the socket world, we
assume that a nonblocking request will always return immediately and
the application is expected to come back around and see if the request
has completed.  Regular files have no equivalent.

-Aaron
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/